Cuba’s Bitcoin Revolution(bitcoinmagazine.com)
bitcoinmagazine.com
Cuba’s Bitcoin Revolution
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/cubas-bitcoin-revolution
119 comments
It slowly bleeds the countrie's economy dry. I witnessed the problem first hand when visiting Cuba: Rented a car and a driver for a private tour of Havanna and the driver was absolutely fluent in English. Like, better then me, close to native speaker, with only a slight accent. So I was complimenting him and asked, where he learned it. I was expecting something like really good language courses, because the typical Cuban would not be able to visit English-speaking countries. Turns out, the guy was a former high-level manager in the state-owned tourist company and basically responsible for marketing/sales in Europe. He decided to drive a car when he learned that the lady cleaning his office actually earned more than him. Obviously he became a great guide, to my benefit, but imagine the loss for the Cuban economy as a whole.
Edit: One more point: In Cuba you would typically tip with 1CUC, even for the most trivial of services. Someone pulls a chair onto the beach for you? One CUC. Cleaning of Hotel room? One CUC. Drinks brought by waiter? One CUC. And so on. The average monthly income is equivalent to about 30CUC. Assume you'd live as a programmer in the Bay Area, making some $120k and people start tipping $4k for pretty much everything. How long would you stay a developer?
Edit: One more point: In Cuba you would typically tip with 1CUC, even for the most trivial of services. Someone pulls a chair onto the beach for you? One CUC. Cleaning of Hotel room? One CUC. Drinks brought by waiter? One CUC. And so on. The average monthly income is equivalent to about 30CUC. Assume you'd live as a programmer in the Bay Area, making some $120k and people start tipping $4k for pretty much everything. How long would you stay a developer?
What's the difference between that story and the tons of smart people trying to create dark patterns to trick people into clicking ads instead of researching and developing great things?
Most people consider smart people diverted to creating dark patterns, to be a bad thing. OP clearly thinks the tourist-dual ecconomy thing in Cuba is bad (for cuba as a whole).
So why should there be a difference? If person A says X is bad, and person B says Y is the same as X, and everyone thinks Y is also bad, where is the contradiction? Its not like there can only be one bad thing in the world.
So why should there be a difference? If person A says X is bad, and person B says Y is the same as X, and everyone thinks Y is also bad, where is the contradiction? Its not like there can only be one bad thing in the world.
Pulling a chair onto the beach for someone actually has value?
The "contempt for efficiency" disaster also has other sides: all the time you lose to navigate into what should have been done properly in the first place.
This seems like whataboutism. Sure, capitalism creates some warped incentive structures - e.g. public schoolteachers being underpaid - but the Cuban government goes out of its way to royally screw anyone who tries to educate themselves or to create anything. Even the fact that we have a choice to create great things or create antipatterns presupposes that the free market draws people to acquire skills in the first place.
As another poster said it does drain the economy, but even more directly. I don't know exactly what the Cuban government allows its party members and employees to do vis-a-vis accessing foreign currency, but I can give the Argentine example. Argentina used to have currency controls that pegged their peso at 3ARS/1USD. If you were a tourist with $100 USD and you need to buy pesos at the airport, you get 300ARS. If you go to anyone on the street in Buenos Aires, they'd give you the black market rate, about 1300ARS for the same $100USD. Okay fine, so no one is stupid enough to sell dollars at the government exchange rate.
But where it gets strange is, when you want to buy dollars for your pesos. To support the fiction of their artificial rate, Argentines were allowed to buy $100 for 300ARS... but only in tiny, tiny quantities. In fact this is what their ATM cards would get them if they traveled to the US. But the max for their entire trip was something like $200 and they had to pay a 100% import duty on everything they purchased abroad.
And now for the knockout punch: If you worked for the government, you could have 20% of your salary converted to USD every month at the official rate.
Where did these cheap dollars come from? The treasury's quickly dwindling strategic dollar reserve. However, in order to keep the government employees at this level, they had to keep the peso at the same official exchange while in reality it devalued more and more.
And where did those dollars out of the treasury go when they got into the hands of government employees? Into banks in Miami.
To be clear, no one worked to get this wealth, it was a favor for being part of the party in power. People who worked got fucked because in the end their life savings in pesos became worthless in any other currency. To stop this from getting out of hand, the government then instituted price controls to keep the price in pesos steady on certain goods produced in the country, mainly beef, bread, etc. But those food producers could make much more selling their produce abroad, and the government had lucrative deals with China and other countries, so they slowly reduced how much food you could buy at these artificially low prices. The stickers on items in the supermarket would show you couldn't buy more than one or two a day. Other items went up in price daily.
This is how a dual currency system bleeds an economy, by funneling most of the citizens' wealth into the bank accounts of a corrupt government elite who do nothing more than manipulate the currency to drain the nation dry.
But where it gets strange is, when you want to buy dollars for your pesos. To support the fiction of their artificial rate, Argentines were allowed to buy $100 for 300ARS... but only in tiny, tiny quantities. In fact this is what their ATM cards would get them if they traveled to the US. But the max for their entire trip was something like $200 and they had to pay a 100% import duty on everything they purchased abroad.
And now for the knockout punch: If you worked for the government, you could have 20% of your salary converted to USD every month at the official rate.
Where did these cheap dollars come from? The treasury's quickly dwindling strategic dollar reserve. However, in order to keep the government employees at this level, they had to keep the peso at the same official exchange while in reality it devalued more and more.
And where did those dollars out of the treasury go when they got into the hands of government employees? Into banks in Miami.
To be clear, no one worked to get this wealth, it was a favor for being part of the party in power. People who worked got fucked because in the end their life savings in pesos became worthless in any other currency. To stop this from getting out of hand, the government then instituted price controls to keep the price in pesos steady on certain goods produced in the country, mainly beef, bread, etc. But those food producers could make much more selling their produce abroad, and the government had lucrative deals with China and other countries, so they slowly reduced how much food you could buy at these artificially low prices. The stickers on items in the supermarket would show you couldn't buy more than one or two a day. Other items went up in price daily.
This is how a dual currency system bleeds an economy, by funneling most of the citizens' wealth into the bank accounts of a corrupt government elite who do nothing more than manipulate the currency to drain the nation dry.
The privilege here flows from contact with tourists, who spend the more valuable, dollar-linked peso. The problem is that this distorts the ‘real’ value of certain activities: wiping tables remains a less useful activity compared to a competent lecturer, even if the stars somehow align to make it more financially rewarding.
> Clearly there's more going on here than somebody is letting on.
> It would make more sense for people affiliated with the government to have a privileged position (perhaps by being able to access foreign currency more directly).
So in communist Central Europe (before 1989) the situation was perhaps similar. Nominally in highest regard were hard blue-collar jobs: miners, workers in metallurgy, mechanical engineering, builders. Many of those jobs also earned much more than doctors, lawyers, managers etc. But the spread between highest and lowest wage was not big. And it was obligatory that everyone has a job.
Because nearly everyone made similar amounts of money, money ceased to be that huge measure of status like it is in 'capitalism'. But that does not mean people stopped measuring and comparing each other: they just found other means to do that. Particularly, connections. There were things money could not buy (at least not legally). But once you knew the right people, much more was possible. So your status was measured with the right connections. And because many basic things were hard to get, particularly valued connections were with people like grocers, butchers, providers of gas pipelines for heating of houses, providers of building materials and building machines (people outside of bigger towns ere mostly building their own houses) etc.
But also good doctors were very valued - not by the offical health system of course, but you were supposed to bring either money or some other valuable gift in return of the favor. The favor being the doctor will see you either at all or do more that the basic necessity mandated by the system.
And of course having a privileged position within the ruling communist party was the best - which is where the concentration of not very nice people was highest.
The result of all this is that now, more than 30 years after the fall of communism, there is still a huge amount of corruption and favoritism in all aspects of the society, but mostly in the state structures.
> It would make more sense for people affiliated with the government to have a privileged position (perhaps by being able to access foreign currency more directly).
So in communist Central Europe (before 1989) the situation was perhaps similar. Nominally in highest regard were hard blue-collar jobs: miners, workers in metallurgy, mechanical engineering, builders. Many of those jobs also earned much more than doctors, lawyers, managers etc. But the spread between highest and lowest wage was not big. And it was obligatory that everyone has a job.
Because nearly everyone made similar amounts of money, money ceased to be that huge measure of status like it is in 'capitalism'. But that does not mean people stopped measuring and comparing each other: they just found other means to do that. Particularly, connections. There were things money could not buy (at least not legally). But once you knew the right people, much more was possible. So your status was measured with the right connections. And because many basic things were hard to get, particularly valued connections were with people like grocers, butchers, providers of gas pipelines for heating of houses, providers of building materials and building machines (people outside of bigger towns ere mostly building their own houses) etc.
But also good doctors were very valued - not by the offical health system of course, but you were supposed to bring either money or some other valuable gift in return of the favor. The favor being the doctor will see you either at all or do more that the basic necessity mandated by the system.
And of course having a privileged position within the ruling communist party was the best - which is where the concentration of not very nice people was highest.
The result of all this is that now, more than 30 years after the fall of communism, there is still a huge amount of corruption and favoritism in all aspects of the society, but mostly in the state structures.
Headline is hyperbolic as the article itself states crypto usage in Cuba is on par with other countries, about 2.5%. There may be some variance in use cases and good future potential in Cuba but it's certainly not yet an active "revolution". There are certainly good use cases (and existing solutions) across the world for alternative banking systems, especially for international remittances.
The problem with positing Bitcoin as the solution is something that this article highlights as the problem with the Cuba's currencies - both Bitcoin and Cuba fiat are incredibly unstable. People living on tight margins in poor economies cannot afford to gamble with their daily cashflow. Every currency fluctuation has a direct effect on their daily living standards, including what they will be able to afford to eat. In the past few months we've seen massive drops in the value of Bitcoin, such as 25% over 10 days and 40% over 14 days. These are the kind of currency devaluations that poor people on very low incomes cannot afford.
The article would have been better if it had talked about cryptocurrency in general, not specifically the one used for financial speculation by millionaires (speculation in which Bitcoin Magazine plays a part in and it's founders & CEO financially benefit from).
Centralized financial networks and stable coins (if we insist on using a blockchain) are more likely to be the answer for these use cases any maybe the hype around Bitcoin helps that but as-is, it's not a good solution for those who would actually benefit from alternative financial networks.
The problem with positing Bitcoin as the solution is something that this article highlights as the problem with the Cuba's currencies - both Bitcoin and Cuba fiat are incredibly unstable. People living on tight margins in poor economies cannot afford to gamble with their daily cashflow. Every currency fluctuation has a direct effect on their daily living standards, including what they will be able to afford to eat. In the past few months we've seen massive drops in the value of Bitcoin, such as 25% over 10 days and 40% over 14 days. These are the kind of currency devaluations that poor people on very low incomes cannot afford.
The article would have been better if it had talked about cryptocurrency in general, not specifically the one used for financial speculation by millionaires (speculation in which Bitcoin Magazine plays a part in and it's founders & CEO financially benefit from).
Centralized financial networks and stable coins (if we insist on using a blockchain) are more likely to be the answer for these use cases any maybe the hype around Bitcoin helps that but as-is, it's not a good solution for those who would actually benefit from alternative financial networks.
I think even 2.5% sounds incredibly optimistic. Cuba's internet system is famously dysfunctional, for a long time the only form of access was to stand around a few overloaded public wifi points. Mobile data is available now, but prohibitively priced unless you're one of the moneyed elite.
The piece comes from a site called "Bitcoin Magazine" lol. Of course they have an interest in seeing these "revolutions" all over the globe
I think removing embargos would help more than a volatile cryptocurrency.
Yes. But, which of those two options is actually happening?
Touché
A volatile currency with direct transaction fees ranging from $0.05-60 [edited per FreeRadical - thanks!] and indirect transaction fees of roughly $90 (socialized block reward). Whose value dropped 50% in a month then went up 50% in a month (which of course still leaves it 25% below its near-term highs). I don't think even the Cuban Peso performs like that. Think about both of those in terms of the average salary of a Cuban national. How about the minimum wage? $0.44 per hour.
[edit, and while I'm in here] And why did it drop 50% in a month? Because the worlds 25th largest automaker decided it was a bad medium of exchange for buying electric cars.
Perhaps unsurprisingly in Venezuela, they decided to go the other way, dollarizing. They moved 66% of all transactions to the USD, forcing the Maduro government's hand, and leading to their major banks offering USD deposit accounts. [1]
If anything they need USDC not BTC. This is just gambling in a regulatory and legal void. The Mad Max of finance.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-13/venezuela...
[edit, and while I'm in here] And why did it drop 50% in a month? Because the worlds 25th largest automaker decided it was a bad medium of exchange for buying electric cars.
Perhaps unsurprisingly in Venezuela, they decided to go the other way, dollarizing. They moved 66% of all transactions to the USD, forcing the Maduro government's hand, and leading to their major banks offering USD deposit accounts. [1]
If anything they need USDC not BTC. This is just gambling in a regulatory and legal void. The Mad Max of finance.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-13/venezuela...
> A volatile currency with direct transaction fees ranging from $0.05-60 [edited per FreeRadical - thanks!]
You don't need to transact on-chain (i.e. settlement layer). There's a lightning network, where transactions are instantaneous, and fees are a few satoshis.
It's amusing how most Bitcoin critics focus on on-chain fees and pretend that lightning doesn't exist.
> And why did it drop 50% in a month? Because the worlds 25th largest automaker decided it was a bad medium of exchange for buying electric cars.
That wasn't the main reason. It was the China FUD and the lack of Grayscale's neutral arbitrage, which took out the biggest buyer off of the market.
You don't need to transact on-chain (i.e. settlement layer). There's a lightning network, where transactions are instantaneous, and fees are a few satoshis.
It's amusing how most Bitcoin critics focus on on-chain fees and pretend that lightning doesn't exist.
> And why did it drop 50% in a month? Because the worlds 25th largest automaker decided it was a bad medium of exchange for buying electric cars.
That wasn't the main reason. It was the China FUD and the lack of Grayscale's neutral arbitrage, which took out the biggest buyer off of the market.
> You don't need to transact on-chain (i.e. settlement layer). You can use a lightning network, where transactions are instantaneous, and fees are a few satoshis.
Sure, however LN is not sufficient because it requires an on-chain transaction to open a channel. To open a channel for everyone on earth would cost up to a third of a trillion dollars and take over 75 years, plus or minus deaths and births. Like getting a phone line in the Soviet Union. Further, complexity of routing is quadratic and will quickly exceed our patience.
> It's amusing how most Bitcoin critics focus on on-chain fees and pretend that lightning doesn't exist.
Well, that's because the underlying that LN is strapped to is so incredibly inefficient LN is a rounding error at the limit.
Sure, however LN is not sufficient because it requires an on-chain transaction to open a channel. To open a channel for everyone on earth would cost up to a third of a trillion dollars and take over 75 years, plus or minus deaths and births. Like getting a phone line in the Soviet Union. Further, complexity of routing is quadratic and will quickly exceed our patience.
> It's amusing how most Bitcoin critics focus on on-chain fees and pretend that lightning doesn't exist.
Well, that's because the underlying that LN is strapped to is so incredibly inefficient LN is a rounding error at the limit.
> To open a channel for everyone on earth would cost up to a third of a trillion dollars and take over 75 years
Not with the upcoming[1] "channel factories"[2].
[1] http://anyprevout.xyz/
[2] https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/67158/what-are-c...
Not with the upcoming[1] "channel factories"[2].
[1] http://anyprevout.xyz/
[2] https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/67158/what-are-c...
By how much do you think it would reduce the L1 load? That article suggests if you can get 10 people together it would reduce the load to 1/10, so still almost a decade. And that's iff you happen to find 10 people who fit the specific shape exactly. That's still wildly unacceptable if true, and also unbelievably unlikely.
LN has always been a "but wait! we've got a solution just around the corner - please don't give up!" feature - but there's nothing around the corner. There never has been. Not to mention it does nothing to address the quadratic routing criticism.
LN has always been a "but wait! we've got a solution just around the corner - please don't give up!" feature - but there's nothing around the corner. There never has been. Not to mention it does nothing to address the quadratic routing criticism.
> By how much do you think it would reduce the L1 load? That article suggests if you can get 10 people together it would reduce the load to 1/10, so still almost a decade.
If I understand correctly the maximum number of people involved in a channel factory creation is the same as the maximum number of keys involved in a multi-signature transaction. The limit is currently 15 or 20[1] but with Shnorr signatures (that will be enabled in the protocol with taproot in November) I think there is no limit to that number.
> And that's iff you happen to find 10 people who fit the specific shape exactly.
I'm not sure what specific shape you're referring to. At the end they all need to sign a specific transaction but that transaction can easily generated by a wallet software or a service provider given all the participants' key and UTXO. They don't need to all send the same amount to the factory.
> LN has always been a "but wait! we've got a solution just around the corner - please don't give up!" feature - but there's nothing around the corner.
The problem itself (on-boarding the whole population) doesn't exist yet either. It doesn't look like a problem impossible to solve by the time it needs to be solved. And if it needs to be solved first then the whole population can probably wait for that to happen.
[1] https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/23893/what-are-t...
If I understand correctly the maximum number of people involved in a channel factory creation is the same as the maximum number of keys involved in a multi-signature transaction. The limit is currently 15 or 20[1] but with Shnorr signatures (that will be enabled in the protocol with taproot in November) I think there is no limit to that number.
> And that's iff you happen to find 10 people who fit the specific shape exactly.
I'm not sure what specific shape you're referring to. At the end they all need to sign a specific transaction but that transaction can easily generated by a wallet software or a service provider given all the participants' key and UTXO. They don't need to all send the same amount to the factory.
> LN has always been a "but wait! we've got a solution just around the corner - please don't give up!" feature - but there's nothing around the corner.
The problem itself (on-boarding the whole population) doesn't exist yet either. It doesn't look like a problem impossible to solve by the time it needs to be solved. And if it needs to be solved first then the whole population can probably wait for that to happen.
[1] https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/23893/what-are-t...
Reading this article (https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-lightning-network-vulnerabi...) is one of the reasons why I sold my Bitcoin. There are at least four protocol-level security flaws in Lightning, which can cause the theft of funds. I also find it hard to believe that these are the only four. If you're in a restaurant and see a cockroach, you don't conclude that that's the only cockroach there. Being issues at the protocol level, these may be unfixable.
> It was the China FUD
It's not just FUD. It's been known for long that a lot of the Chinese interest in crypto is nothing more than evasions of China's capital export controls (see e.g. https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3098981/c...).
It's not just FUD. It's been known for long that a lot of the Chinese interest in crypto is nothing more than evasions of China's capital export controls (see e.g. https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3098981/c...).
Bitcoin was a saviour for many ordingary folk in Venezuela during the hyperinflation crisis. It worked as intended.
https://www.dw.com/en/venezuelans-try-to-beat-hyperinflation...
Why would a country embargoed by the USA use USD?
https://www.dw.com/en/venezuelans-try-to-beat-hyperinflation...
Why would a country embargoed by the USA use USD?
Your link doesn't mean much, as after all 66% of all transactions in Venezuela are USD denominated now per my link. The people of Venezuela had the choice: BTC or USD. They spoke, and they said USD.
Likely only the wealthy laundering money, probably connected to the Maduro government are playing BTC. Only certain entities and individuals connected to the Maduro government are under sanctions, not everyone in Venezuela - which is why USD remittances are possible in the first place. Folks are using USD because Bitcoin is wildly inappropriate for use as a currency.
[edit] Consider that at the time that article was written the average BTC transaction fee with multiple months minimum wage for the average Venezeulan.
Likely only the wealthy laundering money, probably connected to the Maduro government are playing BTC. Only certain entities and individuals connected to the Maduro government are under sanctions, not everyone in Venezuela - which is why USD remittances are possible in the first place. Folks are using USD because Bitcoin is wildly inappropriate for use as a currency.
[edit] Consider that at the time that article was written the average BTC transaction fee with multiple months minimum wage for the average Venezeulan.
> Bitcoin was a saviour for many ordingary folk in Venezuela during the hyperinflation crisis.
During a hyperinflation crisis everything that isn't money appreciates rapidly by definition. This means the often touted usefulness of bitcoin as "inflation hedge" is rather meaningless, because literally any asset that isn't money is an "inflation hedge". The shoes that I'm wearing right now are an "inflation hedge" just as good as bitcoin. In fact they're a better inflation hedge than bitcoin because their price is more predictable.
During a hyperinflation crisis everything that isn't money appreciates rapidly by definition. This means the often touted usefulness of bitcoin as "inflation hedge" is rather meaningless, because literally any asset that isn't money is an "inflation hedge". The shoes that I'm wearing right now are an "inflation hedge" just as good as bitcoin. In fact they're a better inflation hedge than bitcoin because their price is more predictable.
Because Venezuelans have been buying and selling things locally in black market dollars for decades, and even if they want to hold their dollars in offshore accounts, the US isn't interested in stopping them unless they're a regime insider (quite the opposite actually)
As for Maduro, he's just trying to stop capital flight.
As for Maduro, he's just trying to stop capital flight.
Direct transaction fees have been $0.05-0.2 for a long while now, mostly being below $0.1
See: https://mempool.space/
See: https://mempool.space/
[deleted]
They could also use a decentralized stablecoin that doesn't rely on fiat backing, like RAI, if they fear potential regulatory crackdowns on USD-backed stablecoin use in their country.
Though so far US government authorities have been supportive of USD-based stablecoin use by people living under repressive anti-US governments, even going as far as facilitating transfers of USDC, via Ethereum, to medical and humanitarian groups in Venezuela: https://www.coindesk.com/circle-usdc-venezuela-airtm
Though so far US government authorities have been supportive of USD-based stablecoin use by people living under repressive anti-US governments, even going as far as facilitating transfers of USDC, via Ethereum, to medical and humanitarian groups in Venezuela: https://www.coindesk.com/circle-usdc-venezuela-airtm
Neither…
That embargo is always such a mystery to me.
Why on earth is it still in place in 2021? Is it because no US politician want to submit a motion for it to be repealed? Or is there a powerful anti-Cuba lobby keeping it there?
So much misery can be lifted with little effort by so few, yet here we are.
Why on earth is it still in place in 2021? Is it because no US politician want to submit a motion for it to be repealed? Or is there a powerful anti-Cuba lobby keeping it there?
So much misery can be lifted with little effort by so few, yet here we are.
The embargo has no mistery. You can be pro or against it (I'm against), but it has solid bases. Current regime stole/seized/expropiate a lot of USA business assets in Cuba in 1960 (valued today around $6 billion), so it's USA right to embargo the country. Given the economical assymetry, USA can keep the embargo forever without consequences.
Some countries were in the same position as USA of assets seized by the regime, but they accepted symbolic paybacks. USA didn't, probably because they didn't like Cuba destabilizing the Caribean region in the Cold War. At the time, they probably believed that the embargo will damage Cuba regime and cause a quick coup, nobody thought that the regime will survive more than a decade.
Through time this has become a political matter (softening the embargo loses votes in USA, specially in Florida; paying back would expose the regime failure in Cuba when the boogeyman is gone), so both sides at political level are very interested in mantaining the embargo. I tend to see politics as a game of staying in power as long as possible, and here we have a Nash equilibrium where trying to end the embargo goes against both parts. Some people believes (I do) that the embargo helps the regime.
There's no "anti-Cuba" lobby: there's a "anti-Castro lobby". Sadly, this lobby believes in the embargo, and sees its lifting as a weak position against Castro regime.
Some countries were in the same position as USA of assets seized by the regime, but they accepted symbolic paybacks. USA didn't, probably because they didn't like Cuba destabilizing the Caribean region in the Cold War. At the time, they probably believed that the embargo will damage Cuba regime and cause a quick coup, nobody thought that the regime will survive more than a decade.
Through time this has become a political matter (softening the embargo loses votes in USA, specially in Florida; paying back would expose the regime failure in Cuba when the boogeyman is gone), so both sides at political level are very interested in mantaining the embargo. I tend to see politics as a game of staying in power as long as possible, and here we have a Nash equilibrium where trying to end the embargo goes against both parts. Some people believes (I do) that the embargo helps the regime.
There's no "anti-Cuba" lobby: there's a "anti-Castro lobby". Sadly, this lobby believes in the embargo, and sees its lifting as a weak position against Castro regime.
> there's a "anti-Castro lobby". Sadly, this lobby believes in the embargo,
And Ironically, the current Cuban government's problem seem to be due, in part, to the availability of internet to Cubans, which happened when the embargo was softened.
And Ironically, the current Cuban government's problem seem to be due, in part, to the availability of internet to Cubans, which happened when the embargo was softened.
Two months ago the UN voted on ending the embargo on Cuba (though they've been doing that since 1992). 184 countries voted to end the embargo, 3 abstained from voting, and only two countries voted against: US and Israel.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/06/1094612
https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/06/1094612
> is there a powerful anti-Cuba lobby keeping it there?
Yes.
Basically few Americans care either way about Cuba, except for the descendants of those who fled the revolution, who are absolutely furious about it. That has a big effect in Florida.
Yes.
Basically few Americans care either way about Cuba, except for the descendants of those who fled the revolution, who are absolutely furious about it. That has a big effect in Florida.
Cuba can still trade with the rest of the world like the EU, Russia, China and Canada.
That's not quite true.
In Brazil, a few years ago, there was a case of a federal university that purchased Dell workstations for their labs.
Dell told them to stop all relations with Cuba, including academic research as otherwise they wouldn't be able to fulfill the order because of the embargo.
Even though the Brazilian arm of Dell is a Brazilian company, registered in the country and has to follow Brazilian laws, Dell US would be sanctioned if they allowed this transaction to happen.
Last I heard, Brazilian Ministries and the Federal justice system were sueing Dell Brazil. I don't know what was the outcome and could never find information on it.
Sure, they could try to source their lab computers elsewhere, but do you know of any computers that are 100% US-free?
In Brazil, a few years ago, there was a case of a federal university that purchased Dell workstations for their labs.
Dell told them to stop all relations with Cuba, including academic research as otherwise they wouldn't be able to fulfill the order because of the embargo.
Even though the Brazilian arm of Dell is a Brazilian company, registered in the country and has to follow Brazilian laws, Dell US would be sanctioned if they allowed this transaction to happen.
Last I heard, Brazilian Ministries and the Federal justice system were sueing Dell Brazil. I don't know what was the outcome and could never find information on it.
Sure, they could try to source their lab computers elsewhere, but do you know of any computers that are 100% US-free?
Well of course, but that's not a good reason to prevent them from trading with the US.
The "gravity model of trade" is still approximately true
which TL;DR states that it is easiest to trade the most with your largest neighbours. For Cuba, that means Florida (and after that, Mexico and Central American countries). Yes Cuba _can_ trade with more distant partners, but it is less preferable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_model_of_trade
https://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Global_economics/Gravity_t...
which TL;DR states that it is easiest to trade the most with your largest neighbours. For Cuba, that means Florida (and after that, Mexico and Central American countries). Yes Cuba _can_ trade with more distant partners, but it is less preferable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_model_of_trade
https://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Global_economics/Gravity_t...
US sanctions usually attempt to prohibit not only trade with USA but also with all the countries under influence of USA (most of the world).
E.g. China cannot import some items from EU, although they are not under EU sanctions, but because USA effectively controls EU and prohibits trade of some goods with China.
Same with Russia. E.g. every time Russia tries to sell weapons to some third country, USA attempts to create a pressure to cancel the deal.
I'm sure Cuba suffers from similar restrictions.
Anyway, no matter what you do, an island with almost no mineral resources, no source of energy, will always suffer. It doesn't matter whether the government is capitalist or socialist, what currency you use, whether there's embargo or not.
People living in Cuba will be always poor. It's impossible to change that because it would contradict fundamental laws of the universe: you need resources to grow, you need energy.
It's just that now all of them have more or less the same income. If they'd return to capitalist system, very few will become extremely rich (drug suppliers, brothel owners) and the rest will become extremely poor. Just the way it was before revolution.
E.g. China cannot import some items from EU, although they are not under EU sanctions, but because USA effectively controls EU and prohibits trade of some goods with China.
Same with Russia. E.g. every time Russia tries to sell weapons to some third country, USA attempts to create a pressure to cancel the deal.
I'm sure Cuba suffers from similar restrictions.
Anyway, no matter what you do, an island with almost no mineral resources, no source of energy, will always suffer. It doesn't matter whether the government is capitalist or socialist, what currency you use, whether there's embargo or not.
People living in Cuba will be always poor. It's impossible to change that because it would contradict fundamental laws of the universe: you need resources to grow, you need energy.
It's just that now all of them have more or less the same income. If they'd return to capitalist system, very few will become extremely rich (drug suppliers, brothel owners) and the rest will become extremely poor. Just the way it was before revolution.
Tragically it would likely be political suicide in a country where a significant proportion of the population believe that even something like a free-at-point-of-use healthcare system like Britain's is "dangerously socialist".
I will just leave this here:
https://twitter.com/antoniogm/status/1415489923927343105
https://twitter.com/antoniogm/status/1415489923927343105
Not sure how some random person on twitter saying "if you think the embargo is bad you don't understand Cuban reality" as a side note is supposed to nullify years of history? The embargo is absolutely part of the context, you can't just wave away an economic boot on Cuba's neck?
well, he is actually Cuban who lives in US and follows the situation. I am willing to believe his take much more than random dudes from CA.
Here's some of his writings on Cuba. https://www.thepullrequest.com/p/the-cuban-tank-man-will-be-...
Here's some of his writings on Cuba. https://www.thepullrequest.com/p/the-cuban-tank-man-will-be-...
Look the reality is it doesn’t matter what any of us think about the situation on the ground in Cuba. We do not live in Cuba and therefore cannot understand their lived experiences (neither does a Cuban living in Miami who likely has an ideologically warped perception just as much as any of us). The only thing we as Americans can control is to end an economically devastating embargo. At least then American foreign policy can be completely extracted from any of these questions. It objectively has economic consequences on Cuba, and for this person to just hand wave that away makes me question their integrity.
Good to know, thanks.
Went diving for the lede and gave up somewhere near the wreck of the titanic. Maybe I scrolled right past but wow that was a lot of extra context.
The bitcoin part of the piece is based on interviews with 3 people:
1. supposedly buys bitcoin with the funny money the article complains about, leaves unclear where her disposable income comes from and also how people get bitcoin and why they want funny money if they have bitcoin
2. estimates there are hundreds of thousands of bitcoin users in cuba, people get bitcoin sent by family abroad, businesses which want to interface with foreign companies need to use bitcoin
3. this guy uses bitcoin as an uber eats, food delivered to him and other small conveniences, admits it's very early for bitcoin
1. supposedly buys bitcoin with the funny money the article complains about, leaves unclear where her disposable income comes from and also how people get bitcoin and why they want funny money if they have bitcoin
2. estimates there are hundreds of thousands of bitcoin users in cuba, people get bitcoin sent by family abroad, businesses which want to interface with foreign companies need to use bitcoin
3. this guy uses bitcoin as an uber eats, food delivered to him and other small conveniences, admits it's very early for bitcoin
> this guy uses bitcoin as an uber eats
This is the famous 10k BTC pizza again, isn't it?
This is the famous 10k BTC pizza again, isn't it?
> The official Cuban annual median salary in 2018 was approximately 9,300 pesos, or around $372.
To put this into perspective, a single bitcoin transaction currently costs $2.3.
To put this into perspective, a single bitcoin transaction currently costs $2.3.
It's $0.30 on the base layer and closer to $0.01 if you use lightning.
The woman mentioned in the article mentions she first heard about bitcoin watching keiser report on RT. Out of curiosity, I did a youtube search for keiser report, and sorted by most views, and the top results are all spanish dubbed episodes about bitcoin. So it looks like Max Keiser has a major audience in spanish speaking countries, even though his show is really for western audiences.
Bitcoin could be the undoing of the regime. It will allow Cubans to accumulate wealth that the regime cannot seize or convert into another worthless Cuban domestic currency. While I like the idea of free health care and education, the idea that a brain surgeon gets paid same as a street cleaner is absurd. Cuba is a series of failed experiments.
> While I like the idea of free health care and education, the idea that a brain surgeon gets paid same as a street cleaner is absurd.
I personally support wealth and income inequality when coupled with social mobility (and a high standard of living at the low end). With that in mind, why do you think it's absurd for both a street cleaner and a brain surgeon to enjoy a middle class lifestyle? I think we both agree neither should be dirt poor, but of course, that's not the only option. I cannot, for one, think of a solid justification. Both do something important, necessary even, and both benefit society at large.
This comes up frequently here when folks balk at Canadian software engineering wages, which are by Canadian standards solid middle class wages. Compared to America it can be a "pittance" but of course, Canada has much lower wealth and income inequality - and it's because there's a much tighter band of compensation.
Fun stuff to think about.
I personally support wealth and income inequality when coupled with social mobility (and a high standard of living at the low end). With that in mind, why do you think it's absurd for both a street cleaner and a brain surgeon to enjoy a middle class lifestyle? I think we both agree neither should be dirt poor, but of course, that's not the only option. I cannot, for one, think of a solid justification. Both do something important, necessary even, and both benefit society at large.
This comes up frequently here when folks balk at Canadian software engineering wages, which are by Canadian standards solid middle class wages. Compared to America it can be a "pittance" but of course, Canada has much lower wealth and income inequality - and it's because there's a much tighter band of compensation.
Fun stuff to think about.
> I cannot, for one, think of a solid justification.
Really ? Any person without a severe physical disabilities can be a street cleaner - you need very low incentives to generate people capable.
Surgeons take like a decade of training and a small % of the population is even capable of becoming one and there's a demand for their skills.
Software developers create output that potentially has a very non-linear return. Few 1000 people can create software used by billions daily. A few people can develop software that manages billions of $ of assets.
Really ? Any person without a severe physical disabilities can be a street cleaner - you need very low incentives to generate people capable.
Surgeons take like a decade of training and a small % of the population is even capable of becoming one and there's a demand for their skills.
Software developers create output that potentially has a very non-linear return. Few 1000 people can create software used by billions daily. A few people can develop software that manages billions of $ of assets.
actually, statistics prove you wrong. Cuba pays surgeons roughly the same as streetcleaners but they have twice the amount of specualists per 100.000, compared to the united states (1). If you look at countries that have (almost) free education (like cuba), you see that these countries have similar numbers of physicians/specialists per 100.000 people. These facts tend to show that the main factor for having "enough" surgeons has nothing or little to do with pay and mostly with opportunity (free) and capability.
As an interesting sidenote, I'd like to point out that the high salaries of surgeons in the US help to prevent people from going into surgery.
Another point is that if you go into surgery for the money, I think you have the wrong incentives to be the best surgeon.
(1) https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.MED.SAOP.P5?view=map...
(1) https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.MED.SAOP.P5?view=map...
Haha I've lived in a post communist country - if you believe for one second that a surgeon and street cleaner have the same compensation you are extremely naive. The artificial restrictions on direct pay just get transformed into other things.
I've listened to Yoel Romero talk about their Olympic program, how the children in the camp would get more food if they performed better in training and they would pit each other aginst one another to promote competition. You think the kids participate because they wanted to compete in the Olympics ? He could have just cleaned the streets and make the same as a surgeon...
I've listened to Yoel Romero talk about their Olympic program, how the children in the camp would get more food if they performed better in training and they would pit each other aginst one another to promote competition. You think the kids participate because they wanted to compete in the Olympics ? He could have just cleaned the streets and make the same as a surgeon...
> Canada has much lower wealth and income inequality - and it's because there's a much tighter band of compensation.
I can’t fathom pointing to a market that cannot compete globally (Canada’s software engineering job market) and somehow thinking it’s impressive. Knocking everyone down to achieve equality is not desirable.
I’m more interested in approaches that provide safety nets and mobility upward. Not ones that eliminate the paths upward.
I can’t fathom pointing to a market that cannot compete globally (Canada’s software engineering job market) and somehow thinking it’s impressive. Knocking everyone down to achieve equality is not desirable.
I’m more interested in approaches that provide safety nets and mobility upward. Not ones that eliminate the paths upward.
> I’m more interested in approaches that provide safety nets and mobility upward. Not ones that eliminate the paths upward.
To be clear this is my opinion also. I'm not saying Canada's engineering market is impressive, just that this is the context in which this conversation comes up on HN. My question was posed as a platonic thought exercise.
To be clear this is my opinion also. I'm not saying Canada's engineering market is impressive, just that this is the context in which this conversation comes up on HN. My question was posed as a platonic thought exercise.
Knocking everyone down to achieve equality is not desirable.
No it’s not. Most of the citizens that desire this think it will achieve them some income or social safety net.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/clarissajanlim/msnbc-ma...
The fact that a news anchor didn’t realize that was complete bullshit is an example of how mistaken people are about what “making the rich pay” will accomplish.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/clarissajanlim/msnbc-ma...
The fact that a news anchor didn’t realize that was complete bullshit is an example of how mistaken people are about what “making the rich pay” will accomplish.
If I had to choose living with the average income of any nation, obviously I'd consider the US.
If I had to swap lives with a random citizen of any nation, it certainly would not be the US.
I don't like the odds that I'd find myself incarcerated for shoplifting groceries, or living in a tent city, or crapping in a donut box in the back of an Amazon delivery van, or prostituting my ass to pay for insulin.
If I had to swap lives with a random citizen of any nation, it certainly would not be the US.
I don't like the odds that I'd find myself incarcerated for shoplifting groceries, or living in a tent city, or crapping in a donut box in the back of an Amazon delivery van, or prostituting my ass to pay for insulin.
> I don't like the odds that I'd find myself incarcerated for shoplifting groceries, or living in a tent city, or crapping in a donut box in the back of an Amazon delivery van, or prostituting my ass to pay for insulin.
What percentage of people do you think you just described?
What percentage of people do you think you just described?
People don't control the talents with which they were born or the environment in which they're socialised. They also don't control the distribution of talents, technologies and preferences in society that combine to determine the supply and demand curve for different careers. I would say, therefore, that an individual's earning power in the market is overwhelmingly a function of luck.
It is obviously unfair to penalise people for bad luck. It is also unfair for those with good luck to use the talents which fortune has gifted them to extort society, to demand that they receive multiple times more money than the normal citizen lest they deny society their talents and leave. Obviously fairness is not the only relevant value, but it is relevant.
I don't think it is healthy for a society to stream their most talented citizens into high-paying and stable jobs, and to discard the rest as losers that are best forgotten, condemned to low-pay, casualised and insecure work. It is precisely this kind of dual society in which we now live, that is tearing at the social fabric, creating the kind of anger and resentment that produced Trump - and it is profoundly wrong.
I note that the NHS pays doctors markedly less than they would receive in North America, though it is still a considerable amount. Yet we have no real brain drain. The most common reason doctors give for remaining in the UK, besides friends and family, is that they believe in the NHS as a public service provided free at the point of use for the common good. The motives and self-conception of the medical profession has not always been pecuniary. In The Politics, Aristotle is emphatic that medicine is a craft whose end is the good, which is corrupted insofar as it is treated as a means to making money.
It is obviously unfair to penalise people for bad luck. It is also unfair for those with good luck to use the talents which fortune has gifted them to extort society, to demand that they receive multiple times more money than the normal citizen lest they deny society their talents and leave. Obviously fairness is not the only relevant value, but it is relevant.
I don't think it is healthy for a society to stream their most talented citizens into high-paying and stable jobs, and to discard the rest as losers that are best forgotten, condemned to low-pay, casualised and insecure work. It is precisely this kind of dual society in which we now live, that is tearing at the social fabric, creating the kind of anger and resentment that produced Trump - and it is profoundly wrong.
I note that the NHS pays doctors markedly less than they would receive in North America, though it is still a considerable amount. Yet we have no real brain drain. The most common reason doctors give for remaining in the UK, besides friends and family, is that they believe in the NHS as a public service provided free at the point of use for the common good. The motives and self-conception of the medical profession has not always been pecuniary. In The Politics, Aristotle is emphatic that medicine is a craft whose end is the good, which is corrupted insofar as it is treated as a means to making money.
> I would say, therefore, that an individual's earning power in the market is overwhelmingly a function of luck.
Complete and utter bullshit. There are vast amounts of information available on what incomes are for jobs. Unless people have a mental or physical disability, they can put in the effort to train for something more than a trivial minimum wage job.
The average amount of hours spent on watching tv shows, movies, playing video games, etc means that time to improve is not in short supply. As a society we shouldn’t encourage people who want to just coast and contribute very little of what society wants (labor demand).
> to demand that they receive multiple times more money than the normal citizen lest they deny society their talents and leave
The entitlement is palpable here. Nobody is a heart surgeon by by birth. It takes decades of sacrifice and hard work. Very few people are willing to do that and talent only plays a small part. That’s why doctors still make a multiple in the UK of “the normal citizen”: https://www.erieri.com/salary/job/cardiac-surgeon/united-kin...
> and to discard the rest as losers that are best forgotten, condemned to low-pay, casualised and insecure work.
False dichotomy. The rest should be spending time training for skilled jobs. We should absolutely discourage people from getting a BA in Political Science and then spending their life making coffee and shitposting on Twitter. It’s an incredible waste of personal and societal potential.
> I note that the NHS pays doctors markedly less than they would receive in North America, though it is still a considerable amount. Yet we have no real brain drain.
See above. Your doctors make way more than even US software engineers (the thing I’m saying Canadian SWEs should aspire to). You don’t have brain drain because you pay them many multiples of “normal people”.
Complete and utter bullshit. There are vast amounts of information available on what incomes are for jobs. Unless people have a mental or physical disability, they can put in the effort to train for something more than a trivial minimum wage job.
The average amount of hours spent on watching tv shows, movies, playing video games, etc means that time to improve is not in short supply. As a society we shouldn’t encourage people who want to just coast and contribute very little of what society wants (labor demand).
> to demand that they receive multiple times more money than the normal citizen lest they deny society their talents and leave
The entitlement is palpable here. Nobody is a heart surgeon by by birth. It takes decades of sacrifice and hard work. Very few people are willing to do that and talent only plays a small part. That’s why doctors still make a multiple in the UK of “the normal citizen”: https://www.erieri.com/salary/job/cardiac-surgeon/united-kin...
> and to discard the rest as losers that are best forgotten, condemned to low-pay, casualised and insecure work.
False dichotomy. The rest should be spending time training for skilled jobs. We should absolutely discourage people from getting a BA in Political Science and then spending their life making coffee and shitposting on Twitter. It’s an incredible waste of personal and societal potential.
> I note that the NHS pays doctors markedly less than they would receive in North America, though it is still a considerable amount. Yet we have no real brain drain.
See above. Your doctors make way more than even US software engineers (the thing I’m saying Canadian SWEs should aspire to). You don’t have brain drain because you pay them many multiples of “normal people”.
> People don't control the talents with which they were born or the environment in which they're socialised.
But of course they do. Talents and a good surrounding environment aren't worth anything without a lot of education and effort. Why shouldn't a successful doctor be rewarded for that effort.
But of course they do. Talents and a good surrounding environment aren't worth anything without a lot of education and effort. Why shouldn't a successful doctor be rewarded for that effort.
Your first and second sentence read as contradictory. Your first sentence suggests that you do think people control their genes and environment, your second sentence admits they don't, but claims this doesn't matter because those things are necessary but not sufficient to earn a lot of money - you say it also requires education and effort. I will assume your second sentence expresses your true belief.
It is controversial (though a widespread belief among philosophers), but I believe that human talent is entirely a function of the interaction of genes and environment. We don't control the neighborhood in which we are born, the school in which we're enrolled, the values instilled in us, or our temperamental inclination to learning. I believe, for similar reasons, that we don't control our own effort. Humans don't stand apart from the naturalistic universe, but are a part of it. Others claim that while genes and environment play the largest role in determining our talents, we also have a degree of volition in those constraints with which to make better or worse use of those conditions, and for which we should be awarded responsibly. Either way, on the strong or weak version, our talents are largely our of our control, and it is therefore unfair to heavily reward or punish people for them.
I'm also extremely sceptical of the idea that high-earning jobs demand more effort. I have a PhD and it required a fair amount of work. My immediate family were all in unskilled, low-paying jobs which they found boring, and derived little satisfaction from. Who put more effort in? We both had to work, but I found it interesting and fulfilling, whereas they did not. For them, there was a far greater gap between what they were doing and what they wanted to be doing. I think it's obvious that their jobs required more effort in any morally relevant sense. The relationship between effort and pay seems fairly incidental, but a general trend is that the more you are paid, the more likely the job is to exercise and develop your faculties. In this respect, the trendline goes from harder to easier with pay.
It is controversial (though a widespread belief among philosophers), but I believe that human talent is entirely a function of the interaction of genes and environment. We don't control the neighborhood in which we are born, the school in which we're enrolled, the values instilled in us, or our temperamental inclination to learning. I believe, for similar reasons, that we don't control our own effort. Humans don't stand apart from the naturalistic universe, but are a part of it. Others claim that while genes and environment play the largest role in determining our talents, we also have a degree of volition in those constraints with which to make better or worse use of those conditions, and for which we should be awarded responsibly. Either way, on the strong or weak version, our talents are largely our of our control, and it is therefore unfair to heavily reward or punish people for them.
I'm also extremely sceptical of the idea that high-earning jobs demand more effort. I have a PhD and it required a fair amount of work. My immediate family were all in unskilled, low-paying jobs which they found boring, and derived little satisfaction from. Who put more effort in? We both had to work, but I found it interesting and fulfilling, whereas they did not. For them, there was a far greater gap between what they were doing and what they wanted to be doing. I think it's obvious that their jobs required more effort in any morally relevant sense. The relationship between effort and pay seems fairly incidental, but a general trend is that the more you are paid, the more likely the job is to exercise and develop your faculties. In this respect, the trendline goes from harder to easier with pay.
> ... My immediate family were all in unskilled, low-paying jobs which they found boring, and derived little satisfaction from. ...
For that matter, I agree that many unskilled jobs are quite undervalued, and should be paid more. But the way to achieve that is surely not to dismiss the genuine, sometimes strenuous effort involved in developing valuable skills and talents as the mere outcome of unearned factors out of our control.
For that matter, I agree that many unskilled jobs are quite undervalued, and should be paid more. But the way to achieve that is surely not to dismiss the genuine, sometimes strenuous effort involved in developing valuable skills and talents as the mere outcome of unearned factors out of our control.
Your phrasing begs the question, for something to be discounted it has to exist. That's the debate, I and most contemporary philosophers to consider the subject think most of our talents are unearned. That might conflict with the psychological and ideological stories we tell to comfort ourselves and justify the domination of the poor, but I think it's very likely that the strong or weak version of the thesis is true. As I said in my original post, talents also only confer earning power relative to the particular configuration of supply and demand during our working life - over which, clearly, we have no control.
Canada's engineering market isn't impressive because it doesn't have the American DOD spending behind it. There are countries that are quite impressive for their software engineering compared to the states and population. Sweden comes to mind and the taxes are a lot more steep there than in Canada.
>Canada's engineering market isn't impressive because it doesn't have the American DOD spending behind it.
DoD spending helped build Silicon Valley when it was all fruit orchards, but other forces surpassed it in importance decades ago.
>There are countries that are quite impressive for their software engineering compared to the states and population. Sweden comes to mind and the taxes are a lot more steep there than in Canada.
If you credit defense spending with Silicon Valley today, you ought to do the same with Sweden. It, after, all, has an unusually large native defense industry. Saab jet fighters would not exist today if Stockholm hadn't decided decades ago that having an indigenous aircraft industry would be of value for geopolitical (as a neutral country) and economic reasons.
DoD spending helped build Silicon Valley when it was all fruit orchards, but other forces surpassed it in importance decades ago.
>There are countries that are quite impressive for their software engineering compared to the states and population. Sweden comes to mind and the taxes are a lot more steep there than in Canada.
If you credit defense spending with Silicon Valley today, you ought to do the same with Sweden. It, after, all, has an unusually large native defense industry. Saab jet fighters would not exist today if Stockholm hadn't decided decades ago that having an indigenous aircraft industry would be of value for geopolitical (as a neutral country) and economic reasons.
> why do you think it's absurd for both a street cleaner and a brain surgeon
Because a brain surgeon requires a vastly larger amount of money, effort, training, and time to achieve their skill set.
Much less people would spend all of these resources, and time, becoming brain surgeons, if it was as lowly paid as much easier jobs.
> This comes up frequently here when folks balk at Canadian software engineering wages
I mean, ok. But if you don't care about this mismatch, then don't compain when a large amount of engineers in canada flee for better prospects elsewhere. |
Because a brain surgeon requires a vastly larger amount of money, effort, training, and time to achieve their skill set.
Much less people would spend all of these resources, and time, becoming brain surgeons, if it was as lowly paid as much easier jobs.
> This comes up frequently here when folks balk at Canadian software engineering wages
I mean, ok. But if you don't care about this mismatch, then don't compain when a large amount of engineers in canada flee for better prospects elsewhere. |
Then just make the cost of training free only for those that stay in the country.
What, are countries going to put ankle bracelets on every highly trained individual?
Country wide prevention of people fleeing a country for better prospects rarely works.
These types of authoritarian lockdowns just don't work in the long term.
What, do you ban people from going on vacation in other countries? Do you ban traveling entirely?
You can't stop people from leaving, if they can do those things.
Country wide prevention of people fleeing a country for better prospects rarely works.
These types of authoritarian lockdowns just don't work in the long term.
What, do you ban people from going on vacation in other countries? Do you ban traveling entirely?
You can't stop people from leaving, if they can do those things.
That's a bit of a straw man argument. No need for anything so extreme. People are legally required to pay back the funding. If they don't then they will be arrested on return to the country. There are many similar schemes in place to enforce military service for example. As another example the US requires citizens living abroad to pay taxes. Of course some may choose to ignore it but given family ties etc I would wager in many cases the proportion would be small.
> If they don't then they will be arrested on return to the country.
A nationwide scheme to arrest people who leave the country, merely because they have in demand skills is absurd.
You are not going to be able to arrest people, who have in demand skills or prevent them from fleeing the country.
Like, what does that even mean? For how long do people have to be slaves to the nation?
People move countries all the time, and the idea that one is now going to be arrested for something that is perfectly normal and common is absurd.
What, is it just now illegal for people in a nation to ever spend time working outside of the country? Do you understand how ridiculous that is, to prevent people from leaving or working outside the country, forever?
> As another example the US requires citizens living abroad to pay taxes.
The most powerful country in the world can get away with this, yes. But a smaller nation isn't going to be able to have enforced prevention of high skilled labors leaving the country.
A nationwide scheme to arrest people who leave the country, merely because they have in demand skills is absurd.
You are not going to be able to arrest people, who have in demand skills or prevent them from fleeing the country.
Like, what does that even mean? For how long do people have to be slaves to the nation?
People move countries all the time, and the idea that one is now going to be arrested for something that is perfectly normal and common is absurd.
What, is it just now illegal for people in a nation to ever spend time working outside of the country? Do you understand how ridiculous that is, to prevent people from leaving or working outside the country, forever?
> As another example the US requires citizens living abroad to pay taxes.
The most powerful country in the world can get away with this, yes. But a smaller nation isn't going to be able to have enforced prevention of high skilled labors leaving the country.
I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse but that is some ridiculous hyperbole. If it makes it easier for you imagine that all university education is state subsidised via loans that are not repayable so long as you are working in the country but must be repayed otherwise in proportion to the amount of time you spend working in another country. Alternatively you could be required to work for a minimum number of years in your native country in order to pay back the loan. I know of many schemes for educational loans that do just that.
Some common arguments for the wealth inequality:
The surgeon will have spent many years studying while the street cleaner can just get started tomorrow.
The surgeon has responsibilities the cleaner does not.
Finally, given equal pay, people may not want to do unpleasant jobs: I'd rather be a poet than a trash collector.
But on the other hand it's somewhat hard to justify someone earning many orders of magnitude more than others.
The surgeon will have spent many years studying while the street cleaner can just get started tomorrow.
The surgeon has responsibilities the cleaner does not.
Finally, given equal pay, people may not want to do unpleasant jobs: I'd rather be a poet than a trash collector.
But on the other hand it's somewhat hard to justify someone earning many orders of magnitude more than others.
> The surgeon will have spent many years studying while the street cleaner can just get started tomorrow.
Indeed but if it is paid for by the government then what difference does it make? I would rather work my ass off as a SWE than collect garbage even if I'm getting paid the same amount, however that's just me. I suspect it's you too, if you're honest with yourself.
As as for poetry, this is my argument for UBI. Go for it, IMO, poetry has societal value.
> The surgeon has responsibilities the cleaner does not.
[edit] This is true, and also a surgeon generates value through the people they save. I can get behind that. Thanks for entertaining my thought exercise :)
Indeed but if it is paid for by the government then what difference does it make? I would rather work my ass off as a SWE than collect garbage even if I'm getting paid the same amount, however that's just me. I suspect it's you too, if you're honest with yourself.
As as for poetry, this is my argument for UBI. Go for it, IMO, poetry has societal value.
> The surgeon has responsibilities the cleaner does not.
[edit] This is true, and also a surgeon generates value through the people they save. I can get behind that. Thanks for entertaining my thought exercise :)
"As as for poetry, this is my argument for UBI. Go for it, IMO, poetry has societal value."
I am a poet on the dole. I tell you, it is good for the soul. I forego prosody for perspicacity, smoke your weed and blow profundity. You could be me if you dared. Give poet your tax money, you declared.
I am a poet on the dole. I tell you, it is good for the soul. I forego prosody for perspicacity, smoke your weed and blow profundity. You could be me if you dared. Give poet your tax money, you declared.
Based on that poem alone, I consider my tax dollars well spent. Cheers.
It's absurd because one profession takes a lot more time, skill, and dedication to become proficient than the other.
It is absurd because societies which do not restrict pay like that will outcompete societies that do restrict pay like that.
Your brain surgeons will leave and you will be left with the other guy. Which may be fine for you but many Americans do not want that and consequently find things that would bring that about absurd.
Your brain surgeons will leave and you will be left with the other guy. Which may be fine for you but many Americans do not want that and consequently find things that would bring that about absurd.
Canada has excellent brain surgeons. The reality is immigration isn't as simple as picking up and wandering across a border. There's nativism, protectionism and of course the ties that keep you bound to your local community. Friends, family, shops, restaurants, a house. If I told you that I would pay you 30% more to move to Kansas, would you? Why, and why not?
Further, why isn't every brain surgeon in America located in NY, SF and LA?
Broadly, America has a pretty bad healthcare system, ranked somewhere in the mid-20s globally. The vast majority of the healthcare systems ranked higher than America are socialized - somewhere between single payer and two tier. With capped pay. Why aren't all those doctors in America?
Why isn't every software engineer in the Bay Area currently located in Seattle and Texas? It's really not that simple.
Further, why isn't every brain surgeon in America located in NY, SF and LA?
Broadly, America has a pretty bad healthcare system, ranked somewhere in the mid-20s globally. The vast majority of the healthcare systems ranked higher than America are socialized - somewhere between single payer and two tier. With capped pay. Why aren't all those doctors in America?
Why isn't every software engineer in the Bay Area currently located in Seattle and Texas? It's really not that simple.
My family has medical professionals in Canada. I can assure you your surgeons aren’t being paid anywhere near your rubbish disposal people. If they are, then my family is probably all at the 99th percentile of surgeons and at the 99th percentile of family doctors.
So naturally I am unsurprised that Canadian neurosurgeons are good. If they’re anything like other surgical specialties they’re probably also making bank. Or maybe they’re not and my extended family is a bunch of superhumans.
Berkeley alone has as many Nobel Prize winners as Canada entire. That’s the kind of society we build here. Winners. And sometimes there’s a price we will pay for that (we’ll have some losers).
EDIT: Pay your doctors what you pay your street cleaners and you’ll see what they do. They won’t stay in Canada for that.
Oh and sorry about the edit style responses. I have hit my comment rate limit.
I guess my simple response to the rest is “show me the code”. No one does this thing except authoritarian regimes limiting emigration. If it is so good, show us.
So naturally I am unsurprised that Canadian neurosurgeons are good. If they’re anything like other surgical specialties they’re probably also making bank. Or maybe they’re not and my extended family is a bunch of superhumans.
Berkeley alone has as many Nobel Prize winners as Canada entire. That’s the kind of society we build here. Winners. And sometimes there’s a price we will pay for that (we’ll have some losers).
EDIT: Pay your doctors what you pay your street cleaners and you’ll see what they do. They won’t stay in Canada for that.
Oh and sorry about the edit style responses. I have hit my comment rate limit.
I guess my simple response to the rest is “show me the code”. No one does this thing except authoritarian regimes limiting emigration. If it is so good, show us.
My father is an anesthesiologist in Canada and my mother an audiologist, so my position isn't exactly arms-length [edit] and my father has always been very opinionated about the role of the public service within a civil society - before the Alzheimers anyways. I agree with you that they aren't paid the same, just that the band is tighter than in the US. Canadian doctors get paid a good deal less than American doctors. For instance.
A US anesthesiologist is paid a median of $400K USD (500K CAD). In Canada the median pay is $393K CAD ($300K USD). In real terms anyways. In PPP adjusted terms, it's closer.
> Berkeley alone has as many Nobel Prize winners as Canada entire. That’s the kind of society we build here. Winners. And sometimes there’s a price we will pay for that.
Winners and losers. I'm not passing judgement I'm just saying that the American society isn't full exclusively of winners, it's full of winners and the folks I pass on my way home shooting heroin. At the end of the day we all live in a society.
> EDIT: Pay your doctors what you pay your street cleaners and you’ll see what they do. They won’t stay in Canada for that.
Unless you pay them both an upper middle class wage ;)
Either way, thank you for engaging in my thought exercise!
> Oh and sorry about the edit style responses. I have hit my comment rate limit.
Nothing to apologize for, I appreciate your thoughts! I know this is a bit of a third-rail topic - but that's why I'm extra interested in what the HN community has to say.
A US anesthesiologist is paid a median of $400K USD (500K CAD). In Canada the median pay is $393K CAD ($300K USD). In real terms anyways. In PPP adjusted terms, it's closer.
> Berkeley alone has as many Nobel Prize winners as Canada entire. That’s the kind of society we build here. Winners. And sometimes there’s a price we will pay for that.
Winners and losers. I'm not passing judgement I'm just saying that the American society isn't full exclusively of winners, it's full of winners and the folks I pass on my way home shooting heroin. At the end of the day we all live in a society.
> EDIT: Pay your doctors what you pay your street cleaners and you’ll see what they do. They won’t stay in Canada for that.
Unless you pay them both an upper middle class wage ;)
Either way, thank you for engaging in my thought exercise!
> Oh and sorry about the edit style responses. I have hit my comment rate limit.
Nothing to apologize for, I appreciate your thoughts! I know this is a bit of a third-rail topic - but that's why I'm extra interested in what the HN community has to say.
> Unless you pay them both an upper middle class wage ;)
Feel free to give an example of an actual major country that does that then.
If you can't think of such a real life example, then maybe that is your answer as for why this does not work.
As someone who lives in America, I am more than supportive of Canada spending all of their money, overpaying their trash collectors.
That way, Canada can get their trash collections, and we in America can get their engineers.
Go ahead, other countries. Overpay everyone. I'd love that. That way we can poach your high value citizens who are overtaxed.
Feel free to give an example of an actual major country that does that then.
If you can't think of such a real life example, then maybe that is your answer as for why this does not work.
As someone who lives in America, I am more than supportive of Canada spending all of their money, overpaying their trash collectors.
That way, Canada can get their trash collections, and we in America can get their engineers.
Go ahead, other countries. Overpay everyone. I'd love that. That way we can poach your high value citizens who are overtaxed.
This is quite an incomplete analysis.
First off, neither Democrats nor Republicans are interested in supporting immigration into America. The last major immigration tightening was Clinton with the IIRAIRA and the last amnesty was under Reagan. Since then, neither side has been interested in bringing more legal immigrants to the US. After all, the Biden administration is about to allow 100,000 green cards to expire unprocessed and disappear into the aether. At least Donny was honest about it.
> As someone who lives in America, I am more than supportive of Canada spending all of their money, overpaying their trash collectors.
I also live in America, and I am not saying anyone's overpaying trash collectors.
> That way, Canada can get their trash collections, and we in America can get their engineers.
And yet this is only part of the story.
> That way we can poach your high value citizens who are overtaxed.
The lowest tax rate in the US/CA is Alberta and the highest is Quebec. The rest of the US and Canada exist in between these two Canadian provinces. If you factor in health care, basically all of Canada costs less to live in than America for the average individual. YMMV of course.
However, saying Canadians on the whole are "overtaxed" is an indication you haven't given an honest look at what the rest of the western world looks like outside of the US.
As I've been saying, that's only part of the equation. Folks don't move to the US to evade taxes lol - Silicon Valley is among the highest taxed places on earth but still attracts the world's best talent. It's not about the taxes - it never has been. Some small tax break isn't going to get me to leave the Bay Area. I'm confident my opportunity here will outperform the delta. Until that opportunity no longer exists, then I will leave without looking back.
First off, neither Democrats nor Republicans are interested in supporting immigration into America. The last major immigration tightening was Clinton with the IIRAIRA and the last amnesty was under Reagan. Since then, neither side has been interested in bringing more legal immigrants to the US. After all, the Biden administration is about to allow 100,000 green cards to expire unprocessed and disappear into the aether. At least Donny was honest about it.
> As someone who lives in America, I am more than supportive of Canada spending all of their money, overpaying their trash collectors.
I also live in America, and I am not saying anyone's overpaying trash collectors.
> That way, Canada can get their trash collections, and we in America can get their engineers.
And yet this is only part of the story.
> That way we can poach your high value citizens who are overtaxed.
The lowest tax rate in the US/CA is Alberta and the highest is Quebec. The rest of the US and Canada exist in between these two Canadian provinces. If you factor in health care, basically all of Canada costs less to live in than America for the average individual. YMMV of course.
However, saying Canadians on the whole are "overtaxed" is an indication you haven't given an honest look at what the rest of the western world looks like outside of the US.
As I've been saying, that's only part of the equation. Folks don't move to the US to evade taxes lol - Silicon Valley is among the highest taxed places on earth but still attracts the world's best talent. It's not about the taxes - it never has been. Some small tax break isn't going to get me to leave the Bay Area. I'm confident my opportunity here will outperform the delta. Until that opportunity no longer exists, then I will leave without looking back.
> The lowest tax rate in the US/CA is Alberta and the highest is Quebec
> However, saying Canadians on the whole are "overtaxed"
I was talking about the total amount of money that engineers take home. So just replace the word "overtaxed" with underpaid, and the argument holds.
Engineers in america get way way more take home money, regardless of any tax rates.
> Folks don't move to the US to evade taxes
Ok, they do it to get the high salary. Or a lot of them do.
> but still attracts the world's best talent
Yes. Because engineers get paid way more money than trash collectors.
So great, canada should go ahead and pay their engineers the same as trash collections (through a method that will certainly result in them having to spend a bunch of money to do it), and we in the USA can poach a lot of those engineers.
Once again, feel free to show the example of a real country that is spending an equal amount of money on their trash collectors, and their engineers, and I point out how that country is likely having a lot of its engineers leave.
> However, saying Canadians on the whole are "overtaxed"
I was talking about the total amount of money that engineers take home. So just replace the word "overtaxed" with underpaid, and the argument holds.
Engineers in america get way way more take home money, regardless of any tax rates.
> Folks don't move to the US to evade taxes
Ok, they do it to get the high salary. Or a lot of them do.
> but still attracts the world's best talent
Yes. Because engineers get paid way more money than trash collectors.
So great, canada should go ahead and pay their engineers the same as trash collections (through a method that will certainly result in them having to spend a bunch of money to do it), and we in the USA can poach a lot of those engineers.
Once again, feel free to show the example of a real country that is spending an equal amount of money on their trash collectors, and their engineers, and I point out how that country is likely having a lot of its engineers leave.
>Canada has excellent brain surgeons. The reality is immigration isn't as simple as picking up and wandering across a border. There's nativism, protectionism and of course the ties that keep you bound to your local community. Friends, family, shops, restaurants, a house.
And yet, despite those obstacles, the brain drain is real and ongoing.
In a survey of scientists from 16 countries (<http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/the-global-bra...>), the US is the top destination from 13 of the 15 others and the #2 choice from the other two. If you are a Canadian scientist, there is a 16% chance (<https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/37lgxg/the...>) that you will move to the US. That's not "16% of all Canadian scientists that move out of the country move to the US". Let me repeat: *16% of all Canadian scientists move to the US.* They're also likely to be among the top Canadian scientists, too.
By comparison, 5% of all American scientists move to another country, of which 32% go to Canada, so about 1.6-1.7% total. Since the US has nine times more people, that means that in absolute numbers the 1.7% of American scientists is about equal to the 16% of Canadian scientists, but there is no reason to think that the 1.7% makes up the top tier of American scientists; why would the best move north of the border? In other words, the US is receiving the best of Canadian scientists in exchange for an equal number of its non-best. As renewiltord said, "Your brain surgeons will leave and you will be left with the other guy."
>If I told you that I would pay you 30% more to move to Kansas, would you? Why, and why not?
If Kansas paid 30% more for the same job, maybe you and I wouldn't move but a lot more people would move there than the current status quo. But it doesn't.
>Broadly, America has a pretty bad healthcare system, ranked somewhere in the mid-20s globally.
The US does quite well in most patient outcomes. It does not do as well as it could because of the opioid crisis which has singlehandedly reduced average lifespans, and which is more or less independent of access to doctors.
The US's high per-capita healthcare spending is driven to some degree by the very high spending in R&D (the US by itself produces something like 50% of new drugs globally), and is also a function of its much higher per capita GDP, about 20% higher on a PPP basis than Canada and Western Europe outside Norway. (I wish I could find the analysis that discusses this; I'll edit this if I can locate it.)
Regardless, 91% of Americans have health insurance, compared to 95-97% in every other developed country. (There are always people who fall between the cracks, like a Canadian who moves and neglects to update his provincial health care card. The only way to get true 100% coverage is to go the UK NHS route of not requiring a member card at all.) Meanwhile, an amazingly high portion of Canadians don't have a family doctor (<https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/despite-more-doctors-many-cana...>). In Atlantic Canada the shortage is astounding (<https://www.thetelegram.com/in-depth/doctor-shortage/what-we...>). It's one thing to have shortages in rural areas—that happens in the US too—but Halifax?!? I've heard the same occurs in Vancouver too. I can assure you that such a doctor shortage exists nowhere in the US outside really rural areas.
>The vast majority of the healthcare systems ranked higher than America are socialized - somewhere between single payer and two tier. With capped pay. Why aren't all those doctors in America?
If tomorrow the US said that every medical doctor and STEM PhD holder from comparable countries (Canada, Western Europe, Australasia, Japan/Korea/Taiwan) could enter the country with unlimited working privileges, what would happen? To some degree you answered your own question above; of course there would be at least some, perhaps many, that would still not move because of local ties, friends, language issues. But Anglophones, and others who are comfortable with English or want to learn, and don't have such binding ties? Remember, 17% of all Canadian scientists already move to the US.
And yet, despite those obstacles, the brain drain is real and ongoing.
In a survey of scientists from 16 countries (<http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/the-global-bra...>), the US is the top destination from 13 of the 15 others and the #2 choice from the other two. If you are a Canadian scientist, there is a 16% chance (<https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/37lgxg/the...>) that you will move to the US. That's not "16% of all Canadian scientists that move out of the country move to the US". Let me repeat: *16% of all Canadian scientists move to the US.* They're also likely to be among the top Canadian scientists, too.
By comparison, 5% of all American scientists move to another country, of which 32% go to Canada, so about 1.6-1.7% total. Since the US has nine times more people, that means that in absolute numbers the 1.7% of American scientists is about equal to the 16% of Canadian scientists, but there is no reason to think that the 1.7% makes up the top tier of American scientists; why would the best move north of the border? In other words, the US is receiving the best of Canadian scientists in exchange for an equal number of its non-best. As renewiltord said, "Your brain surgeons will leave and you will be left with the other guy."
>If I told you that I would pay you 30% more to move to Kansas, would you? Why, and why not?
If Kansas paid 30% more for the same job, maybe you and I wouldn't move but a lot more people would move there than the current status quo. But it doesn't.
>Broadly, America has a pretty bad healthcare system, ranked somewhere in the mid-20s globally.
The US does quite well in most patient outcomes. It does not do as well as it could because of the opioid crisis which has singlehandedly reduced average lifespans, and which is more or less independent of access to doctors.
The US's high per-capita healthcare spending is driven to some degree by the very high spending in R&D (the US by itself produces something like 50% of new drugs globally), and is also a function of its much higher per capita GDP, about 20% higher on a PPP basis than Canada and Western Europe outside Norway. (I wish I could find the analysis that discusses this; I'll edit this if I can locate it.)
Regardless, 91% of Americans have health insurance, compared to 95-97% in every other developed country. (There are always people who fall between the cracks, like a Canadian who moves and neglects to update his provincial health care card. The only way to get true 100% coverage is to go the UK NHS route of not requiring a member card at all.) Meanwhile, an amazingly high portion of Canadians don't have a family doctor (<https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/despite-more-doctors-many-cana...>). In Atlantic Canada the shortage is astounding (<https://www.thetelegram.com/in-depth/doctor-shortage/what-we...>). It's one thing to have shortages in rural areas—that happens in the US too—but Halifax?!? I've heard the same occurs in Vancouver too. I can assure you that such a doctor shortage exists nowhere in the US outside really rural areas.
>The vast majority of the healthcare systems ranked higher than America are socialized - somewhere between single payer and two tier. With capped pay. Why aren't all those doctors in America?
If tomorrow the US said that every medical doctor and STEM PhD holder from comparable countries (Canada, Western Europe, Australasia, Japan/Korea/Taiwan) could enter the country with unlimited working privileges, what would happen? To some degree you answered your own question above; of course there would be at least some, perhaps many, that would still not move because of local ties, friends, language issues. But Anglophones, and others who are comfortable with English or want to learn, and don't have such binding ties? Remember, 17% of all Canadian scientists already move to the US.
> but there is no reason to think that the 1.7% makes up the top tier of American scientists; why would the best move north of the border? In other words, the US is receiving the best of Canadian scientists in exchange for an equal number of its non-best. As renewiltord said, "Your brain surgeons will leave and you will be left with the other guy."
This seems like purely circular logic. Why are you assuming that it's the top Canadian scientists who move to the US and the non-top US scientists who move to Canada, rather than vice versa? Yes the US is a more popular destination than Canada, but isn't that just a reflection of having a bigger population, more cities, etc.? (e.g. as a toy model, if everyone who immigrated did it because they'd fallen in love and were moving to live with their partner, wouldn't that produce a distribution like you describe?). A scientist may well earn more in the US, but they might well have a better quality of life in Canada, there are plenty of reasons to prefer one or the other.
This seems like purely circular logic. Why are you assuming that it's the top Canadian scientists who move to the US and the non-top US scientists who move to Canada, rather than vice versa? Yes the US is a more popular destination than Canada, but isn't that just a reflection of having a bigger population, more cities, etc.? (e.g. as a toy model, if everyone who immigrated did it because they'd fallen in love and were moving to live with their partner, wouldn't that produce a distribution like you describe?). A scientist may well earn more in the US, but they might well have a better quality of life in Canada, there are plenty of reasons to prefer one or the other.
> The US does quite well in most patient outcomes. It does not do as well as it could because of the opioid crisis which has singlehandedly reduced average lifespans, and which is more or less independent of access to doctors.
The US has among the worst monthers mortality rate in the entire OECD [1] - and most of the rest of the numbers don't look so hot either [2]. Life expectancy is falling. Generally only cancer 5 year survival is improving - because the US keeps people alive just a bit more than 5 years. They die soon after of the same cancer, because the US prioritizes keeping folks alive a hair longer at all costs - and focuses on earlier detection. Earlier detection does not indicate cure, but sure does boost numbers.
> Remember, 17% of all Canadian scientists already move to the US.
This was true in the past, however the US has a NO VACANCIES sign all over it at this point. The Biden administration is allowing 100,000 green cards (authorized, ready to issue) expire without being given to individuals this year. [3] Mine included - and I've been here since 2010 and paid literally millions of dollars in taxes.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats are interested in permitting any more immigration. The last tightening was Bill Clinton under IIRAIRA and the last amnesty was Reagan. Since then, nobody has done anything to make immigration to America any easier, even when Obama Democrats controlled both the House and Senate. Trump made things slightly more painful, but Biden has not rolled those changes back and all signs point to no plans to do so.
The old numbers no longer matter, America is no longer taking new applicants. Doors closed.
But don't just take my word for it, Canada's getting the bulk of North America's new immigrants. And has been for years. [4] Canada is now offering permanent resident cards to immigrants totaling 1% of its entire population every year. Can you imagine America taking 3 million new immigrants per year?
[1] https://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/527806002/focus-on-infants-du...
[2] https://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/health-at-a-glance-united-...
[3] https://www.wsj.com/articles/some-100-000-green-cards-at-ris...
[4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2021/07/15/house...
The US has among the worst monthers mortality rate in the entire OECD [1] - and most of the rest of the numbers don't look so hot either [2]. Life expectancy is falling. Generally only cancer 5 year survival is improving - because the US keeps people alive just a bit more than 5 years. They die soon after of the same cancer, because the US prioritizes keeping folks alive a hair longer at all costs - and focuses on earlier detection. Earlier detection does not indicate cure, but sure does boost numbers.
> Remember, 17% of all Canadian scientists already move to the US.
This was true in the past, however the US has a NO VACANCIES sign all over it at this point. The Biden administration is allowing 100,000 green cards (authorized, ready to issue) expire without being given to individuals this year. [3] Mine included - and I've been here since 2010 and paid literally millions of dollars in taxes.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats are interested in permitting any more immigration. The last tightening was Bill Clinton under IIRAIRA and the last amnesty was Reagan. Since then, nobody has done anything to make immigration to America any easier, even when Obama Democrats controlled both the House and Senate. Trump made things slightly more painful, but Biden has not rolled those changes back and all signs point to no plans to do so.
The old numbers no longer matter, America is no longer taking new applicants. Doors closed.
But don't just take my word for it, Canada's getting the bulk of North America's new immigrants. And has been for years. [4] Canada is now offering permanent resident cards to immigrants totaling 1% of its entire population every year. Can you imagine America taking 3 million new immigrants per year?
[1] https://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/527806002/focus-on-infants-du...
[2] https://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/health-at-a-glance-united-...
[3] https://www.wsj.com/articles/some-100-000-green-cards-at-ris...
[4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2021/07/15/house...
Yes they do benefit society but in different ways. My own bias is that I approach the subject of compensation from a capitalist economy. If I were the brain surgeon in Cuba (and I have met one when I visited) I would be using my skills and abilities to improve my quality of life since the $30 / month standard wage in Cuba doesn't provide for much. The street cleaner is probably thinking and doing the same thing.
The alternative is not always better. When judging a country's success, we always assume 'if you change, you become US's standard of living', while in reality, things are always complicated.
If the experiment was to defy U.S. hegemony and see if your outcomes improve - then yeah, it's a failure.
> It will allow Cubans to accumulate wealth
Accumulating wealth has never been a problem in Cuba or anywhere else. The problem is always creating wealth, which is an economic problem, not a currency problem.
Accumulating wealth has never been a problem in Cuba or anywhere else. The problem is always creating wealth, which is an economic problem, not a currency problem.
so you think people want to become brain surgeon for the money?
I remember reading stories about the great cuban sneakernet where people got all kinds of tv shows, etc, with quite low latency, all without internet access through USB sticks. I wonder if there is a way to run something similar to a cryptocurrency on such a "network".
Some of the worst bullshit I've read on Cuba in recent months. And there's been a lot of that to choose from
This shows one of the few uses of Bitcoin: evading the law (in this case the US-embargo)
> the communist government toyed with capitalism “the way a tiger plays with its prey: tapping it lightly one minute, squeezing the life out of it the next. Socialist officials urged would-be Cuban capitalists to go ahead and open their small businesses, then they erected layers of burdensome regulations to limit profit and handicap success. Their real goal was not to lift millions out of poverty. It was to prevent anyone from making millions.”
It's the same thing now happening in China. Unfortunately, this mentality and ideology now also finds its home in North America.
It's the same thing now happening in China. Unfortunately, this mentality and ideology now also finds its home in North America.
Abandoned a paragraph in due to an Unllunavoidable ad covering half the screen
The Maleconazo riots were less than 1000 people. Hardly earth-shattering in a country of 11 million. But unsurprisingly the US touts it as some kind of populist uprising when this sort of thing has been happening in Portland for 18 months.
Bitcoin doesn’t scale as they will soon find out!
$10 fee on every transaction and an immutable 7tps. LN is joke.
$10 fee on every transaction and an immutable 7tps. LN is joke.
Classic shitpost comment, saying something is bad/joke and not a single explanation as to why you think it's a joke. Great job :)
Setting up an LN node is on par with setting up a mining rig in terms of fiddlyness and tech know how
There's everything in there: being your own bank, trust and distancing from pyramid schemes, hodling, ...
How often does Bitcoin need to fail as a currency so that crypto-currency enthusiasts stop pushing the narrative of Bitcoin being a currency?
But maybe if Cuba becomes anarcho-capitalistic, the stupid embargo gets finally lifted /s.
How often does Bitcoin need to fail as a currency so that crypto-currency enthusiasts stop pushing the narrative of Bitcoin being a currency?
But maybe if Cuba becomes anarcho-capitalistic, the stupid embargo gets finally lifted /s.
I find it amusing that much like Marxism, bitcoin promised a revolution under capitalism's nose, only to thrive in dragging dramatically underdeveloped societies into it.
Ahh yes. socialism bad, unfettered capitalism good.
Maybe we (The US) should just lift the embargo?
Maybe we (The US) should just lift the embargo?
Pls see Twitter link further up
Correct, socialism bad. And where in the world is there unfettered capitalism? In the US we have the government which sets rules and regulations.
The second part of this paragraph feels like a really weird framing of the first part. As far as I can tell:
- workers in what the author considers less-skilled jobs are making more than those in higher skilled jobs
- some workers are quitting to take up these "unskilled" jobs, and it appears they're fully able to do so
On the one hand, it seems the incentives aren't great for people to work in certain professions. On the other, it's kind of hard to argue that there's a fundamental class struggle going on here when a doctor can join the "privileged" class by simply quitting their job and wiping tables. Clearly there's more going on here than somebody is letting on. It would make more sense for people affiliated with the government to have a privileged position (perhaps by being able to access foreign currency more directly).